An anonymous reader writes: The current corporate overlords of both Slashdot and Sourceforge plan to sell off the properties:

The Company acquired Slashdot Media in 2012 both to provide the Dice business with broader reach into Slashdot's user community base and to extend the Dice business outside North America by engaging with SourceForge's significant international technology user community. The Company, however, has not successfully leveraged the Slashdot user base to further Dice's digital recruitment business; and with the acquisition of The IT Job Board and success of Open Web, the anticipated value to the Company of the SourceForge traffic outside North America has not materialized. The Company now plans to divest the business, as it does not fit within the Company's strategic initiatives and believes the Slashdot Media business will have the opportunity to improve its financial performance under different ownership.

And to add you don't even have to take my word for it. Read the damn DMCA. It has an entire section about eligibility of protection under US laws for works in foreign countries:

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) each require member countries to provide protection to certain works from other member countries or created by nationals of other member countries. That protection must be no less favorable than that accorded to domestic works.

Section 104 of the Copyright Act establishes the conditions of eligibility for protection under U.S. law for works from other countries. Section 102(b) of the DMCA amends section 104 of the Copyright Act and adds new definitions to section 101 of the Copyright Act in order to extend the protection of U.S. law to those works required to be protected under the WCT and the WPPT.

The only people misinformed are the ones who have never read the DMCA like yourself.

The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England.

And owned by a US corporation.

Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985 [legislation.gov.uk]. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

Yes, it does. As I said, any copyrights in one WIPO signatory, the UK, is valid in another WIPO signatory, the US. So, yes, it is valid for them to sue over a copyright in the US. That's the entire point of the WIPO treaties.

Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?

You're extremely wrong.

1) No one is applying the DMCA outside of the US. Both companies are US-based.2) Murdoch's citizenship doesn't matter at all.3) Copyrights that are valid in one WIPO signatory country are valid in another. And both the US and UK are WIPO signatories.

Well, you'd be spot-on *IF* the US & UK still operated under Rule of Law instead of Rule of/by Men. In Rule of/by Men "Law" is whatever Men currently in power say it is and are themselves not bound by any such.

No one is operating outside of the rule of law. News Corp, a US corporation, is using a US statute, the DMCA, against another US corporation, First Look Media. Now, their claim is silly, but their use of the DMCA is not outside of what the law allows.

English law doesn't apply. Both News Corp and The Interceptor's parent company, First Look Media, are based in the US. Also, any valid copyright in one WIPO signatory country is valid in another WIPO signatory company.

Now, this doesn't make what News Corp is doing valid, but trying to act like they don't have any standing in the US to bring this case is silly.